Re: [Unity-irc3] Banning from the entire network, part two

[David Westley]

Are you sure the levels should add together? If you add the levels together, 
suppose several servers add level 1 and level 2 bans for the same mask... 
ummm... scratch that I see what you are doing... I'm being an idiot :)

Different note... I assume a higher level ban will over-rule a lower level ban, 
like... a level 1 server adds a ban... then a level 4 server adds the same ban 
as it wasn't from a trusted source originally but then the level 1 server tries 
to remove it... that should fail shouldn't it?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Krueger <address@hidden>
To: "irc3 (Unity) public discussion" <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:59:50 +0200
Subject: Re: [Unity-irc3] Banning from the entire network, part two

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 18:44:20 +0100, David Westley <address@hidden> wrote
> this:
> > Small suggestion... use current real-world entities for examples, like...
> > 
> > Undernet, DALnet, EFNet, Quakenet and IRCnet are all groups (I hope)
> > Servers that join one of those nets would become part of one of those
> groups
> > yes?
> > 
> > Slap me if I'm going off in completely the wrong direction :)
> > 
> > David
> 
> QuakeNet - tiscali.dk.quakenet.org (10), b0rk.uk.quakenet.org (4),
>            snoke.nl.quakenet.org (2)
> 
> Undernet - mclean.va.us.undernet.org (10), amsterdam.nl.eu.undernet.org (4),
>            stockholm.se.eu.undernet.org (2), tiscali.dk.quakenet.org (1)
> 
> EFNet    - efnet.vuurwerk.nl (10), efnet.demon.co.uk (4),
>            irc.ipv6.homelien.no (2)
> 
> where the number is the access level of the server.
> 
> 
> First example:
> Someone on tiscali.dk.quakenet.org sets a global ban *.t-dialin.net. Since
> tiscali is member of both QuakeNet and Undernet, it will send the ban to both
> of those groups. On QuakeNet it will be a level 10 ban while on Undernet it
> will be a level 1 ban.
> Now b0rk.uk.quakenet.org has chosen to accept all bans with level >=4 from
> QuakeNet, thus the ban gets added on b0rk.
> snoke.nl.quakenet.org accepts bans with level >=1 but requires the ban to be
> placed at least two times from different servers. In order to get the ban
> active on snoke, someone on b0rk would have to send the same ban again.
> 
> On Undernet, the tiscali ban will most likely do nothing since it's only been
> placed once there and on the lowest level possible.
> However, amsterdam.nl.eu.undernet.org might have setup a special local trust
> for tiscali, immediately adding all bans tiscali sets. It's up to them. :)
> 
> EFNet isn't affected at all.
> 
> 
> Second example:
> amsterdam.nl.eu.undernet.org sets a ban on *.p0p0.de, level 4 (since it
> can't set a higher level). However, it's a required policy on the Undernet
> group that servers only accept level 5 bans.
> Now tiscali has a look at the ban and decides that the ban is reasonable, so
> they send the same ban back to the blacklist server on level 1 (obviously).
> Now we have two bans on *.p0p0.de, one on level 4 and one on level 1. Now we
> add the levels together and get a level 5 ban. Level 5 bans are mandatory for
> all servers to pick up, so we now have a Undernet-wide ban on *.p0p0.de.
> Horray.
> 
> 
> Note that these group memberships are only about global/remote bans and
> kills,
> nothing else is affected by them.
> 
> Any questions left?
> 
> Jan
>